Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Here, educate yourself:

https://www.newsweek.com/what-exactly-does-steele-dirty-russian-pee-tape-dossier-trump-contain-660327

Noteworthy from the above link:

"I assign more credence to the Steele report knowing that the FBI paid him for his research. From my experience, there is nobody more miserly than the FBI. If they were willing to pay Mr. Steele, they must have seen something of real value.":

"As outsiders without the investigative tools available to the FBI, we can only look at the information and determine if it makes sense given subsequent events and the revelation of additional information."

"Mr. Steele did not have the benefit of knowing Mr. Trump would win the election or how events might play out. In this regard, does any of the information we have learned since June 2016 assign greater or less credibility to the information?"

"Were the people mentioned in the report real? Were their affiliations correct? Did any of the activities reported happen as predicted?"

"To a large extent, yes."

By the way, your original source "Just Security" is biased.  I can find tons of right wing sources that completely discredit the dossier.  Instead, I'll rely on the Mueller Report.  As detailed in the Report, Trump surrounded himself with unsavory characters who in many instances broke the law.  This does not change the conclusion that no meaningful collusion occurred between Trump and Russia, to steal the 2016 election.

Originally Posted by James Brown

By the way, your original source "Just Security" is biased.  I can find tons of right wing sources that completely discredit the dossier.  Instead, I'll rely on the Mueller Report.  As detailed in the Report, Trump surrounded himself with unsavory characters who in many instances broke the law.  This does not change the conclusion of no collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

Also, the fabricated Dossier (I just read a NYT story acknowledging the dossier was primarily false) is not the entirety of the issue.   Trump was routinely presented a traitor owned by Russia in the press after he was elected.  Collusion was presented as the reason he won the election!  I believe Hillary still argues this now and then.  Must make her feel better.   In that aspect, which many people, maybe even you believe today, the collusion lie is the first cousin of the 2020 voter fraud pack of lies.  

The whole package of lies I am calling the "collusion lie" was multifaceted and huge.  The dossier only got the ball rolling.

As James will remind us, Trump made it easy with his obstruction.  I agree, but that does not justify the sins of his opponents, after the fact.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

The Mueller report couldn't find enough, in their estimation, to pursue a criminal case against Trump. It did NOT exonerate him...

I understand, but I also know the burden for bringing charges is lower than the burden to convict.   If Mueller had the goods, he could have charged.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

The Mueller report couldn't find enough, in their estimation, to pursue a criminal case against Trump. It did NOT exonerate him...

"This much is clear: What the American people have heard about the Mueller report to
date from President Trump and members of his administration is largely spin, deliberate
distortions, or outright lies."

"Contrary to the administration's claims, the Russians interfered with our elections — and
Donald Trump, his family, and many of his campaign staff welcomed that interference.
Furthermore, many Americans would be shocked to learn that — far from exonerating the
president and his 2016 campaign — Special Counsel Robert Mueller found 10 potential
episodes of obstruction of justice by Trump. In addition, the investigation has already led to
199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and 5 prison sentences."

https://www.commoncause.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/CC_Mueller-Report_Executive-Summaries-Vol-1-and-2_6.19.19.pdf

PS: Sorry for channeling the dick but I'm really just being pissed at Trump....

I get that too.  I also know that Trump obstructed justice, his people committed crimes, and that many went to prison.  Also, Trump welcomed and encouraged Russian interference.  He is scum.  None of that justifies the Democrat's behavior at the time. 

Speaking of the dick, if you agree, I am now changing the subject, but I believe only because we've beaten this horse to death.

I am pissed at the Democrats for the lie I listed as #5 above: pretending that Biden was fit to run for president when he obviously was not.   You remember Karine Jean-Pierre telling us Biden was sharp as a tack and that the video evidence otherwise were "deep fakes."  I think that was the word she used.   I personally did not believe her, but I bet a lot of Democrats did, until the debate, and then it was too late.  

I think inflation and dissatisfaction with immigration policy killed Biden's chances.  But the failed lawfare and the painful humiliating lies told about Biden's capacity to run sure did not help.  The Democrats once again found the only imaginable path to losing to Trump, and here we are.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

....and this is precisely what the R party is doing.  
"Ahm gonna stick it to those fat cat libruls who kowtow to the wealthy elites by voting for a party that kowtows to the wealthy elites."

Bold plan.

Dave, still waiting for the Davis Response (TM) to my post 22.

Hi David and James - I agree with what James said.  Trump's election was indisputably fueled by resentment of the elites, an entirely understandable resentment in my opinion.   

I disagree with Dave's angle, vehemently.  Dave, I am assuming that the "hick" dialect you used is a dig at the intelligence of Trump voters.  I'm not wrong am I?  You are portraying Trump voters as uneducated boobs right?   This is wrong on many levels as caricatures often are.  The working classes had solid and intelligent reasons to vote for Trump, or at least to vote against Biden/Harris.  Look at the messaging during the campaigns.   Look at the economy last November.   Look at the immigration disaster created by Biden/Harris.  Much solid post-election analysis has focused on just how completely the Democrats have abandoned their working class base.  

Democrats will continue to lose elections to the extent they continue to mock the working class (while courting the pricey endorsements of Oprah, Springsteen and other "royalty." ).   You ended your dig at Trump voters with, "...by voting for a party that kowtows to the wealthy elites."   This is quaint.  In 2024, and since at least the middle of the Obama years, the Democrats are clearly the party kowtowing to the elites.  Look at Hollywood for one example.  One big monolithic love-fest for the Democrats.  The Democrats absolutely own the "white highly-educated upper-middle class/wealthy" demographic.  How much more elite can a demographic get?  

Old school liberal Ruy Teixeira says it better than I can.

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-democratic-coalition-shattered

https://www.thefp.com/p/voters-send-message-to-democrats-progressive-culture-issues

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/democratic-delusions-arent-going

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

No, it isn't settled law. Not by a longshot.

The court granted Certiorari on it.  

If it was settled law, they wouldn't have granted cert. and they would have issued a summary judgement right then and there.

I would argue that birthright citizenship absolutely, definitively, qualifies as settled law. 

Even so, the Supreme Court can grant Cert to clarify, or sometimes overturn previously settled law.   Brown v. Bd. of Education overturning the "separate but equal" settled law of that time, or Dobbs overturning the "settled law" of a right to privacy for example.

I personally think it is extremely unlikely the Supreme Court overturns the settled pre-Trump view of birthright citizenship.  This law review article goes into the debate surrounding the ratification of the 14th Amendment, and I am convinced that the Amendment was intended to cover the children of aliens born here, along with freed slaves.  https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2021/01/Ramsey_Originalism-and-Birthright-Citizenship.pdf

I also think the arguments that the kids of illegal aliens are not citizens, based upon the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause of the 14th Amendment are really thin.   It will be an interesting case to follow with potentially huge impact.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I would argue that birthright citizenship absolutely, definitely, qualifies as settled law. 

Even so, the Supreme Court can grant Cert to clarify, or sometimes overturn previously settled law.   

Here is the earlier (much earlier) case addressing birthright citizenship.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

The difference Trump's team will argue is that Wong Kim Ark's parents were legally in the US when he was born, even though they were citizens of China.  The target of Trump's executive order is of course the children of illegal aliens.  I think one has to make a really tortured read of the 14th Amendment to argue the children of illegals are not, "subject to the jurisdiction (of the United States)" at birth.


Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"I would argue that birthright citizenship absolutely, definitively, qualifies as settled law."

Precisely, and it's high time for the high court to stop its continuing practice of undermining lower courts on Trump issues like this one while allowing him almost unlimited access every single time he comes whining to SCOTUS. The issue with playing semantics and word games such as "facilitate" vs "effectuate" has got to stop and the courts need to start enforcing the laws that Trump continually breaks. Enough already!

You are not seeing the benefit of the Supreme Court supporting the lower courts and specifically ruling against Trump's birthright citizenship order, putting the issue to rest for another 120 years.  Yes, they could have denied Cert and let the three Court of Appeals decisions stand.  But that has less impact than a written Supreme Court opinion addressing all of the issues.

Or maybe they are seriously considering overturning birthright citizenship?  We'll know this summer.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

The massive transfer of wealth to the uber wealthy that is happening right now isn't kowtowing to the elites?
  
The combined net worth of the 2020 class of the 400 richest Americans was $3.2 trillion, up from $2.7 trillion in 2017 (Wiki)  The 2025 numbers are even more impressive. (Forbes) "For 2024,In all, they are worth a record $5.4 trillion, up nearly $1 trillion from last year. A dozen have $100 billion-plus fortunes, also a record. And admission to this elite club is pricier than ever: A minimum net worth of $3.3 billion is required, up $400 million since 2023". How much do you think the 400 richest Hollywood elites collectively have?  Would it even reach the 3.3Billion that ONE person must have to crack the top 400?? 


Using a bit of hillbilly dialect does hint at the adjective 'stupid'.  You are 100% correct, James.  But if this is the wrong adjective what would be the correct one to describe millions of people who vote for a party that is clearly whittling away at their Social Security, their 401k's, their health, their personal safety, their very citizenship rights  as clearly stated policy? 

Dave

The richest 400 Americans are not the "elite" the working class has rebelled against.  The working class is rebelling against the vast number of self-styled elites in politics, business, academia, the press, Hollywood, and all over the suburbs who present themselves as morally superior than the average man, all while pooh-poohing "trivial" concerns over things like inflation.

Also, you have not demonstrated that Trump is a better friend to the oligarchs and the richest of the rich than the Democrats might be or have been.  AOC and Bernie are out there attacking both Trump and their fellow Democrats too.   

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/04/17/carville_aoc_bernie_sanders_twerp_david_hogg_need_to_split_off_from_the_democratic_party_and_call_themselves_socialists.html

I think you have a time-warped view of the US Democratic party.  The party of the working man I think you truly support died with Obama.  Did you look at those Ruy Teixeira articles?   So no, I do not think that the marked movement in the working class from the Democrats to the Republicans is stupid at all.  As I mentioned after the election too many times, the Democrats will continue to lose elections if the lesson they take from 2024 is simply, "Trump or R voters are just stupid."

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Using a bit of hillbilly dialect does hint at the adjective 'stupid'.  You are 100% correct, James.  But if this is the wrong adjective what would be the correct one to describe millions of people who vote for a party that is clearly whittling away at their Social Security, their 401k's, their health, their personal safety, their very citizenship rights  as clearly stated policy? 

Dave

For starters, no one is whittling away at SS.  The tariffs are killing the market and trouncing 401k accounts, but that was not clear on election day.   You'll have to explain to me how Trump or R policies are affecting the working class's health.  R's have compelling arguments that their policies are better for the safety of the working class than the alternative.  You recall "defund the police" right?  And the R's are killing the D's on immigration policy, whether the elites like it or not.   

So, I would call the vast majority of working class people who migrated R, or migrated to Trump in 2024 rational voters given the economic and social context of last year's elections and especially given the choices presented to the voters and the campaigns those choices ran.  

I nagged a lot about this in mid-November 2024, but I am not going to sit by when my friends and associates reduce the motivations of 77 million voters to mere "stupidity" (or "racism" or "sexism" just because my friends and associates disagree with Trump voters on policy.  Think about it, that is what you are doing.  You are saying that 77 million people, or at least a lot of them, are "stupid"  because they have different circumstances, values, and policy preferences than you do.  This is a perfect example of James' original point.